Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-18-01-146 — STEFANIE FIERMAN

Request: Variances in the R-1AA zoning district as follows: 1) To allow the principal residence to remain 24 ft. from the rear (east) property line in lieu of 35 ft. 2) To construct an addition to be 16 ft. from the rear property line in lieu of 35 ft. 3) To allow an existing detached accessory structure to be located 1 ft. from the rear property line and 1 ft. from the side (east) property line in lieu of 5 ft. 4) To allow an addition on a lot with 70 ft. of frontage in lieu of 85 ft. 5) To allow an addition on a lot with 7,185 sq. ft. of lot area in lieu of 10,000 sq. ft. Note: The Waterwitch Club subdivision was platted in 1925.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff noted that the subject property is part of a plat which was recorded in 1925, which according to the Property Appraiser's information is also the year the home was constructed. It appears that the garage was constructed with the home. Like many of the lots in this subdivision, not only can the subject property not meet the criteria for the R-1AA zoning district, it can not meet the criteria for the R-1A district. Further, the home was constructed far back on the lot, only 24 ft. from the rear property line. As such, the variance is not self-imposed. There is no other location to construct a logical addition to the home. One correspondence in opposition was received, however, it did not indicate what the objection was based on. The applicant submitted letters of support from four neighboring property owners, plus one additional was received. Staff also provided information on other similar variances granted in the subdivision, including one for the lot abutting the subject property's rear yard. This was a variance to allow a rear setback of seven (7) ft. in lieu of 35 ft. The applicant indicated her agreement with the staff recommendations and condition. There being no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application, the public hearing was closed. The BZA concluded that the size of the land, the original placement of the home, and the constraints of zoning on the property warranted granting the variances. A motion to recommend approval passed unanimously.